Legitimacy Of Not The Majority Party Forming A Government.

[Gromit]

As Labour and the Conservatives look neck and neck up to the wire, the result of the election looks to be very close.

In the event of just a handful of votes separating them, they will both need a coalition partner to form a Government.

Do you believe it is legitimate for the Party that comes second to form a Government with another partner?

Nick Glegg (bless him) says he will not entertain such a scenario, and that he will only partner with the winner.

All that is probably academic, as the LibDems will probably come a distant 4th behind the SNP, who I suspect was the target of his jibe.

So, would a Conservative/LibDem coalition be legitimate if Labour get more seats, or a Labour/SNP coalition if the Conservatives get slightly more seats?

[Ellipsis]

There won't be a Labour/SNP coalition if the Conservatives get slightly more seats, as Miliband said he would not going into coalition with the SNP ...

There could in theory be a Labour/LibDem coalition that had more combined seats than the Tories, still not a majority, and worked on a confidence and supply basis with the SNP. It was this that Clegg was saying he would not support.

[Old_Geezer]

I believe the largest grouping has legitimacy even if there is a single party block someone with more than either of them separately. The combined group is then the largest group and will have more say and influence than a smaller single party group, who would be hamstrung otherwise.

After all it should be a collection of individuals not 'party blocks' if a representative democracy is really the aim.

But with our present system I think where no clear agreement is reached the largest party should be the one to try to form a minority government.

Which is what I think we already have; is it not ?

I'm unsure what Clegg hopes to achieve by the remark. Unless it is to excuse not getting involved in a further coalition to the party supporters. Although the result may be a shift of Liberal voters to the Tories in an effort to avoid SNP coalition involvement.

[New Judge]

The question of legitimacy is not one that the elctorate need concern themselves about. Voters elect individuals to represent them at Westminster. The Queen then invites whoever she thinks is best capable of forming a government of ministers from those duly elected MPs.

[whiskeryron]

I still & always will maintain that if the collection of none mainstream votes totals more than the Tory or Labour individual votes then democratically although it could prove awkward we should elect a National government that represents the majority of the electorate.

[TheChair]

An unelected, rich, benefits recipient gets to decide. That's democracy.

[whiskeryron]

I take it that you are referring to HM the queen.

[tamborine]

ConUkip could work

[TheChair]

Yes, Whiskeryron

[icecreamicecream]

Whiskery,TheChairs preference is for President Blair or Presidant Prescott,didnt you know?

[jim360]

On a pedantic note people mean "plurality" and not "majority". A majority party would be definition be able to form a government on its own.

I think it depends rather on how close the top two parties are. In 2010 for example the gap between Labour and the Conservatives was something like seven percentage points or over two million votes, in which case a Lab-Lib coalition even if it had been possible at Parliament would have been seriously pushing it for legitimacy. Although Cameron didn't win in 2010, Labour certainly lost and badly.

On the other hand 2015 is set to be a closer race, and if the gap between first and second is very close (very possibly less than 2% overall) then I don't agree that the second party should be out of the running. Especially when it will be equally close in terms of seats.

The Lib Dems may yet have a role in the next government. A somewhat interesting question is whether their presence in a coalition is more legitimate than the SNP's. I would say yes, because the SNP are confined to only a part of the country and the Lib Dems receive support nationwide. And, while NJ may be technically correct, this is a vote that in practice is far more about who is running the country. The parties involved in that most directly ought to have at least a reasonable level of support across the country, no?

[Old_Geezer]

There is no need for a president. We have a government that covers all required positions already. Anything else would be superfluous.

[Ellipsis]

Here is an example of the type of result for which Clegg would not support Labour:

Conservative: 285
Labour: 255
Lib Dem: 48
SNP: 42
UKIP: 3
Plaid: 3
Greens: 1
Sinn Fein: 5
DUP: 8

Here is another example where Clegg would not support Labour:

Conservative: 285
Labour: 280
Lib Dem: 48
SNP: 17
UKIP: 3
Plaid: 3
Greens: 1
Sinn Fein: 5
DUP: 8

Here is an example where Clegg would support Labour:

Conservative: 280
Labour: 285
Lib Dem: 48
SNP: 17
UKIP: 3
Plaid: 3
Greens: 1
Sinn Fein: 5
DUP: 8

[mikey4444]

Lib Dem 48 MP's ?

Are you serious ?

[Ellipsis]

They were jut examples to illustrate various scenarios. FYI the Lib Dem results since 1997 are as follows:

1997: 46 / 659 seats
2001: 52 / 659 seats
2005: 62 / 646 seats
2010: 57 / 650 seats